WG1/WG2 Scheme naming proposal
|Reported by:||aag||Owned by:||alexshinn|
|Component:||WG1 - Core||Keywords:|
Denis Washington made the following proposal for the names of the variants of Scheme defined by WG1 and WG2:
I know it is a bit early to discuss this, but as I saw that this was
mentioned again recently in the scheme-reports mailing list (in the
context of module naming), I quickly wanted to write up a proposal of
how the WG1 and WG2 standards could be named in the future.
First of all, I think that it is expected by many that what will end up
being WG1 Scheme should labeled the actual "Scheme" programming language
- not "Small Scheme" or something - as this is what is thought as being
Scheme: a language that is minimal but practical. Also, WG1 is the only
document that has mandatory language features, so it natural to still
name every implementation that implements these features as a complete
Following this line of thought, WG2's all-optional modules and rules can
be thought of as "extensions" to the core language, but extensions that
are agreed up on (as opposed to implementation-specific).
So in summary, I'd like to propose the following names for the WG1
WG1: *Report on the Algorithmic Language Scheme, Revised 2011* (abbr.: RS11)
WG2: *Report on Standard Extensions to the Algorithmic Language Scheme,
Revised 2011* (abbr.: RSES11; alternatively, "[...] Commobn Extensions
[...]", abbr. RCES11; should probably be "Published 2011" as there is no
original document to revise.)
The standard module namespace could then be moved from (scheme ...) to,
e.g., (rsn ...) (analogous to (rnrs ...) from R6RS).
I hope this proposal is helpful.